Relation among 25(OH)D, Aquatic Exercises, and Multifunctional Fitness on Functional Performance of Elderly Women from the Community.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate if there is a relation among 25(OH)D, aquatic training, and multifunctional fitness on functional performance of elderly woman from the community. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: We evaluated elderly women aged ≥ 60 years (67±5 years old). One-hundred eighty were engaged in aquatic training (AT), 119 in multifunctional fitness (MF) for at least one year, and sedentary group (SED) with 162 independent elderly women from the community centers who had not practicing any regular physical exercise at least one year before. MEASUREMENTS: Timed up-and-go (TUG), 2-minute step test (2MST), 30-second chair stand (CS), arm curl (AC), functional reach test (FRT), unipedal balance test (UB) with visual control, handgrip right (HR) and handgrip left (HL) portable dynamometer for strength hip flexors (Hip strength) and knee extensors (Knee strength), serum 25(OH)D, intact parathyroid hormone (PTH), and creatinine clearance. RESULTS: Physical and functional tests showed differences among the three groups (ST; TUG, CS, AC, FR and USB = p <0.001). The PTH and the TUG test correlated inversely with 25(OH)D (r = -0.29 - p <0.001/ r = - 0.16 - p <0.001), also between 25(OH)D and BMI for AT and MF groups respectively (r= -0,15; p=0,04/ r= - 0,19; p=0,036). The AC test showed positive correlation (r = 0, 1 - p <0.001). The age and 25(OH)D were controlled and assumed to be a covariates in the statistical analysis that employed ANCOVA. There was difference on the performance of TUG test (p= 0.049). CONCLUSION: TUG performance was associated with age, exercise type and serum levels of 25(OH)D. The 25(OH)D insufficiency was common in elderly women from subtropical areas.

A bioequivalence study of gliclazide based on quantification by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate, in human volunteers, the performance of one gliclazide tablet formulation (gliclazide 80 mg tablet from EMS Indústria Farmacêutica Ltda.) against two reference gliclazide tablet formulations (Diamicron 80 mg tablet from Servier do Brazil Ltda. and Diamicron 80 mg tablet from Servier (Ireland) Industries Limited). METHODS: The study had an open, randomized, three-period crossover design with a one-week washout interval between doses. The samples were obtained over a 48-h interval after each oral administration of gliclazide. The samples were extracted from plasma using diethylether : hexane (80 : 20, v/v) and the extracts were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/ MS). Chromatography was performed isocratically using a Jones Chromatography Genesis C8 120A 4u. The method had a chromatographic run-time of 2.5 min and a calibration curve of the range of 0.02- 10 microg x ml(-1) (r(2) > 0.9993). The limit of quantification was 0.02 microg x ml(-1). RESULTS: The geometric mean and 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the Gliclazide/Diamicron (Ireland) ratio were 588.68% (90% CI= 491.16, 705.58%) for AUClast, 423.50% (90% CI = 338.25, 530.23%) for AUCinf, and 1395.77% (90% CI= 1116.62, 1744.72%) for Cmax. The geometric mean and 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the Gliclazide/Diamicron (Brazil) ratio were 249.16% (90% CI = 207.96, 298.54%) for AUCiast, 249.16% (90% CI = 207.96 - 298.54%) for AUCinf, and 188.04% (90% CI - 151.72, 233.05%) for Cmax. CONCLUSION: Since the 90% CI for Cmax, AUClast and AUC(0-infinity) ratios were all outside the 125% interval proposed by the US Food and Drug Administration, we concluded that the gliclazide test formulation were not bioequivalent to either reference formulation. Interestingly, the pharmacokinetic parameters such as Cmax, AUClast of both reference formulations are compatible with neither the literature nor the profile of an immediate release formulation. In addition, both reference formulations were not bioequivalent in themselves, indicating significant differences in reference product formulation.